2018 Update on Radiation - PDF document

2018 Update on Radiation Treatment for Head/Neck Cancer Michael Samuels, MD University of Miami Sylvester CCC Conflict of Interest • EMD Serono — Consultant Learning Objectives 1. Understand the basic treatment pathways that guide manageme

nt of head/neck cancer cases (oral cavity, oropharynx, larynx, hypopharynx, nasopharynx, major salivary glands) including the roles of surgery, radiation therapy and use of systemic agents 2. Become familiar with the new AJCC staging system f

or HPV - associated oropharynx cancers 3. Improve technical competence in planning head/neck IMRT cases 4. Improve understanding of the use of leading edge head/neck cancer technologies (proton RT, immunotherapy) Neck Nodal Levels Neck Nodal Le

vels • Ia : Submental • Between anterior bodies of digastric muscles • Drains lower lip, chin and (secondary drainage for) anterior tongue • Ib : Submandibular • From upper to lower margin of submandibular gland, medial to mandibl

e and lateral to digastric muscle • Drains oral cavity and lower nasal cavity Neck Nodal Levels • II: Upper Jugular • From underside of lateral process of C1 to hyoid, medial to SCM, lateral to scalene muscles. Divided into IIA and II

B by the posterior border of the IJV. • Drains most HN sites • Nasal cavity • Nasopharynx • Oropharynx • Oral cavity (secondary) • Larynx • Hypopharynx • Major salivary glands Neck Nodal Levels • VIIa : Retrostyloid (“high

level II”) • Tissue surrounding carotid/jugular vascular bundle, from jugular foramen to upper border of level II • Drains nasopharynx • Retrograde drainage pathway for bulky involvement of level II • VIIb : Retropharyngeal • Fro

m top of C1 to body of hyoid, between constrictors and longus colli /longus capitis muscles • Drains nasopharynx, soft palate, tonsillar fossa, posterior pharyngeal wall RP RS Neck Nodal Levels • III: Mid - Jugular • From bottom of hyo

id to bottom of cricoid, medial to SCM and lateral to the scalene muscles • Drains most HN sites • Nasopharynx • Oral cavity • Oropharynx • Larynx • Hypopharynx Neck Nodal Levels • IVa : Lower Jugular • From bottom of cricoid t

o 2 cm above sternoclavicular joint, postero - medial to SCM, anterior to scalene muscle • IVb : Medial supraclavicular • From 2 cm above upper edge of manubrium to upper edge of manubrium, postero - medial to SCM, anterior to scalene

muscle • Hypopharynx, larynx, thyroid, cervical esophagus, distal drainage from higher cervical levels Neck Nodal Levels • V: Posterior Triangle • From hyoid to transverse cervical vessels, posterior to tail of SCM and anterior to tra

pezius, from platysma to scalene muscles • Drains nasopharynx, oropharynx, thyroid, posterior scalp Neck Nodal Levels • VI: Anterior compartment • VIa — From lower edge of hyoid to upper edge of sternal manubrium, anterior to infrahy

oid muscles and between SCMs • VIb — From lower edge of hyoid bone to upper edge of sternal manubrium, posterior to infrahyoid muscles, anterior to larynx, thyroid gland, esophagus and surrounding trachea • Level VI drains lower face,

tip of tongue, FOM, anterior neck, hypopharynx, thyroid, larynx, cervical esophagus Level VIa and VIb VIa VIb Simulation/Planning/IGRT Simulation Techniques • Supine, arms at sides, neck extended • Thermoplastic head/shoulders (long) ma

sk • Custom neck cushion for some patients • Arm straps to pull shoulders down • Oral devices • Dental trays (ideally 3 - 5 mm thick) vs. tubular or “popsicle” bite block • Custom device is optimal • CT • IV contrast • 2 mm s

lice thickness Image Fusion • For DEFINITIVE cases • Role of PET fusion • Delineate tumors with questionable borders on CT • Detect and locate involved sub - cm nodes • Role of MRI fusion • Best anatomic delineation of tumors with qu

estionable borders on CT • Don’t forget T2 sequence — often very helpful • For POST - OPERATIVE cases • Fuse pre - op CT, PET and/or MRI • Fusions aid in delineation of tumor bed Planning Concepts • High risk/intermediate risk/low

risk volumes • 70/63/56 in 35 fractions (5 or 6 fractions/week) • 70/60/54 in 33 fractions (5 fractions/week) • GTV CTV PTV (no skipped steps) • GTV • 0.5 - 0.7 cm margin to CTV 70 • 0.3 cm to PTV 70 (other centers skip thi

s step) • 0.5 cm to CTV63, but include lymphatic compartment • 0.3 cm to PTV63 • CTV56 to elective nodal areas, then 0.3 cm to PTV56 • 3 mm PTV margin assumes daily IGRT Postop Treatment of Musculocutaneous Flaps • Delineate flap on RT

- planning CT • CTV includes entire flap plus margin (about 1 cm) plus clips to encompass fully the surgical bed • The flap itself is not at risk for recurrence, but the highest risk tissues are adjacent to the flap - normal tissue interf

ace Image Guided Radiation Therapy (IGRT) • Daily kV • Daily CBCT • Better than kV at detecting rotation, changes in external contour, fit of mask • Particularly powerful technique when combined with 6 - degree treatment couch Treatment

Approach by Site Oral Cavity Oral Cavity Structures: • Oral (mobile, anterior) tongue • Floor of mouth • Hard palate • Gingiva • Retromolar trigones • Buccal surfaces • Lips • Dividing line between oral cavity and oropharynx is

circumvallate papillae Oral Cavity Staging: AJCC 7 th vs. 8 th Editions • Primary purpose of changes is to incorporate the prognostic impact of extranodal extension (ENE or ECE) into the staging system for the first time. • Clinical evid

ence of ENE moves the cN stage directly to a new nodal substage , cN3b. • Pathologic evidence of ENE can upstage in 2 ways: • A pN1 node with ENE becomes pN2a • Any other nodal situation (pN2 - N3) with ENE becomes pN3b. • There is no

change to the stage groupings. Oral Cavity: Treatment Approach • Primarily a “surgical disease.” • All stages are approached with definitive surgery if tumor and nodes are resectable . • Do not get confused into suggesting non - surg

ical approaches unless • Tumor is unresectable • There is a medical contraindication • There is consideration of definitive brachytherapy (very rarely used in 2018) • Be careful not to discuss “tongue cancer.” Clarify between oral

tongue (oral cavity) and tongue base (oropharynx), as algorithms are very different. • Surgery is complete resection, generally with ipsilateral neck dissection. Oral Cavity, cont. • Indications for postoperative RT alone: • T3 or T4 stag

e • Close surgical margin, not adequately cleared with additional margins • Perineural invasion • Lymphovascular invasion • 2 or more positive nodes • Indications for postoperative RT with concurrent cisplatin: • Positive surgical ma

rgin • Extranodal tumor extension (ENE, ECE) • Chemo is generally bolus cisplatin 100 mg/m 2 q 3 weeks Pooled RTOG/EORTC Post - op Pooled RTOG/EORTC Post - op Oral Cavity: Volumes and Doses • Postoperative RT should acknowledge that most o

ral cavity structures are midline and that postop RT will need to include generous coverage of the oral cavity and necks bilaterally. • For oral tongue and floor of mouth, CTV60 (30 fxs ) usually includes the entire oral tongue and FOM com

plex, with involved nodal regions and adjacent regions at 60 Gy and elective nodal regions at 54 Gy . Levels IB - IV should be covered in almost all cases. Level IA for lower lip and anterior tongue primaries. Regions with ENE nodes get

66 Gy . • RMT, lateralized gingival and buccal cases may be treated ispilaterally . Oral Cavity: Enrolling Trials • RTOG 0920 (just closing) • For intermediate risk cases requiring postoperative RT without chemotherapy • Randomization

between postoperative RT alone vs. RT + weekly cetuximab • ECOG 3132 • For intermediate risk cases requiring postoperative RT without chemotherapy • Tissue sent for mutational analysis • p53 mutated cases are randomized to postoperative

RT alone with or without weekly cisplatin Oropharynx Oropharynx Structures: • Tongue base • Soft palate • Anterior and posterior tonsillar pillars • Tonsillar fossae • Lateral and posterior oropharyngeal walls • Vallecula (potential

space between tongue base and epiglottis) • Superior border is soft palate/hard palate junction, inferior border is hyoid bone Oropharynx Staging: AJCC 7 th vs. 8 th Editions • Main purpose of revised 8th Edition staging was primarily to

align HPV - associated (HPV+) case staging with good prognosis of disease compared to HPV - negative (HPV - ) cases. Secondary purpose was to incorporate the impact of ENE on prognosis in HPV - cases. • Why was this necessary? • Epidemic

of HPV+ oropharynx cases (70 - 80%) in US • Rapid rise of incidence over past 20 years • Prognosis of HPV+ cases exceeds tobacco - associated cases by about 15 - 20% • Using the 7 th Edition staging system for HPV+ cases, outcomes for stag

es I - IVA were similar. • The 8 th Edition delineates clinical and pathologic factors that actually correlate with changes in prognosis in HPV+ cases, and eliminates consideration of factors that do not correlate with prognosis. HPV - Asso

ciated Oropharynx Cancer Chaturvedi (2011): Incidence of OPX Ca Over Time by HPV Status HPV - Associated Oropharynx: Summary of Changes • T - staging (clinical and pathologic) • T4a becomes T4; T4b eliminated HPV - Associated Oropharynx: Sum

mary of Changes • cN - Staging: Changes to cN1, cN2 • pN - Staging: Changes to pN1 - 2, elimination of pN3 HPV - Associated Oropharynx: Summary of Changes • M - staging is unchanged • Grading HPV - Associated Oropharynx: Summary of Chang

es • Definition of p16 status • If it is not tested, it is p16 (HPV) negative, regardless of clinical factors HPV - Associated Oropharynx: Summary of Changes • Changes to clinical stage groupings: • You need T3 or N2 to get to St. II â€

¢ You need T4 or N3 to get to St. III • You need M1 to get to St. IV HPV - Associated Oropharynx: Summary of Changes HPV - Associated Oropharynx: Summary of Changes • Changes to pathologic stage groupings: Same as clinical, but: • pT3 mov

es up to St. III if N2, stays in St. II if N0 - N1 • pT4 drops back to St. II if N0 - N1 , pT4 remains St. III if N2 • T - Staging is unchanged HPV - Negative Oropharynx: Summary of Changes HPV - Negative Oropharynx: Summary of Changes â€

¢ HPV - clinical N - staging: clinical (imaging/palpation) ENE=N3b HPV - Negative Oropharynx: Summary of Changes • HPV - pathologic N - staging • ENE=N3b exc. single ENE node • HPV - stage groupings and grades: unchanged HPV - Negative Or

opharynx: Summary of Changes Oropharynx: Treatment Approach • Unlike oral cavity, oropharynx is a disease where we think of definitive RT or chemoRT first, BUT • TORS ( Trans - Oral Robotic Surgery ) or TLM ( Trans - Oral Laser Microsurger

y) are options for selected cases (we will return to this topic shortly) Influence of HPV status on treatment: None yet • RTOG 1016 • Definitive chemoRT study for HPV+ • RT/cis vs. RT/ cetuximab • Closed 2014 — no results yet • NR

G HN002 • Definitive RT to 60 Gy vs. Definitive chemoRT to 60 Gy • Closed 2017 — no results yet • ECOG 3311 • TORS study for HPV+ • Intermediate risk group postop RT at 60 vs. 50 Gy • Closed 2017 — no results yet • As of to

day, no influence of HPV status on treatment strategy Oropharynx, cont. • RT vs. chemoRT • Using the AJCC 7 th edition staging system (ignoring changes in N - staging in the new system for HPV+ cases), cases up to T2N1 can be treated with

RT alone • Chemoradiation for • Multiple clinically involved nodes • Single involved node �3 cm • clinical evidence of ENE • cT3 - T4 Oropharyx : Volumes and Doses • GTV70 is determined by multi - modality imaging (CT/PET/MRI)

• CTV70 is 5 - 7 mm expansion depending on clarity of GTV delineation • PTV70 is 3 mm expansion, assuming daily IGRT • CTV63 is 5 mm expansion, plus inclusion of lymphatic region related to primary location • PTV63 is 3 mm expansion â€

¢ Clinically involved nodes treated to 70 Gy • Typically cover levels II - IV, IB only if bulky level II involvement or tumor extends to oral cavity. Retropharyngeal and retrostyloid coverage to be discussed later. • Nodal region doses

as discussed in the last section Definitive Oropharynx: Ipsilateral vs. bilateral • Tongue base and soft palate are MIDLINE structures and require bilateral RT/ chemoRT • Tonsillar cases are eligible for consideration for ipsilateral RT. H

ow to select? • No T3 - T4 • No more than 1 cm extension to soft palate • No more than minimal, superficial extension to lateral tongue base • Nodal burden is not excessive enough to cause retrograde lymphatic flow • No bulky adenopat

hy — this is a judgement call (some allow single node cm only) • No clinical ENE Trans - Oral Robotic Surgery (TORS)/ Trans - Oral Laser Microsurgery (TLM) • Substantial advance on previous mandible - splitting techniques • Provides en

- bloc resection of primary tumor with oncologic margins and primary closure • Usually accompanied by a conventional neck dissection • Lower morbidity and faster recovery than previous surgical approaches • Intent of TORS is to provide eq

ual tumor control to definitive RT/ chemoRT with less toxicity • This requires careful patient selection relying on the ability to predict the post - TORS pathology report in advance • The fundamental comparison is between TORS and the non

- surgical alternative TORS, cont. • Which patients are NOT eligible for TORS? • Surgery will cause major functional deficits • T3 - T4 primaries • More than minimal soft palate extension • Central tongue base tumors • Medical cont

ra - indications • Trismus or other difficulties with exposure TORS, cont. • For the rest, the post - TORS pathology report will result in 3 possible risk groups: • Low - risk — This means no further treatment indicated (“home run”

) • pT0 - 2N0 - 1 using AJCC 7 th edition • Lowest possible toxicity for any curative approach • Intermediate risk — This means postoperative RT alone to 60 Gy indicated (“base hit”) • pT3 - 4, PNI, LVSI, close margin, 2 or more

involved nodes • Combined toxicity of TORS and 60 Gy is roughly similar to definitive RT or chemoRT to 70 Gy • High risk — This means postoperative chemoRT to 66 Gy (“strike out”) • Positive margins or ENE • Combined toxicity

of TORS and 66 Gy chemoRT exceeds chemoRT to 70 Gy w/o TORS TORS: Implications of Future Trial Results • ECOG 3311 • If the intermediate risk group results show postop RT at 50 Gy is equal to 60 Gy , this would tilt the balance in the

comparison towards TORS for this group (TORS + 50 Gy vs. RT or chemoRT to 70 Gy ) • NRG HN002 or following phase III study • If definitive RT alone or chemoRT to 60 Gy is equivalent to 70 Gy , then this would tilt the balance in the

comparison towards definitive RT/ chemoRT Oropharynx Guideline Document Nasopharynx Nasopharynx • Anterior border is posterior nasal choanae • Superior border is clivus • Posterior border is pre - vertebral tissues • Inferior border is

inferior edge of soft palate Epidemiology • WHO types I, II, III • Type III is EBV - related and endemic to East Asia and SE Asia • Some type II cases are EBV related • Type I is more common in non - Asian populations and is closer to

a typical SCCa • Preliminary data indicates that following serum EBV DNA levels before and after treatment may be an effective indicator of treatment response Nasopharynx: Treatment Approach • Primarily a “radiation therapy disease” â

€¢ No significant changes in staging for AJCC 8 th edition • T1N0 is RT alone, all other stages treated with chemoRT Chemotherapy in Nasopharynx Cancer Chemotherapy in Nasopharynx Cancer Chemotherapy, cont. Nasopharynx: IMRT planning • Thes

e cases are not very common in US outside of NY, CA • MRI imaging is mandatory to plan NPX cases • Determine tumor extension, esp. involving nerves and foramina of skull base • Consultation with neuroradiologist may be helpful • 70 Gy

in 33 - 35 fxs to primary tumor with margin • CTV60 is key planning consideration • Large number of structures must be covered in tricky area • Consider use of “checklist” in textbook to avoid missing any • Coverage of RP nodes and

level V is mandatory, but Ib is optional Larynx Larynx Structures: Supraglottic larynx • Epiglottis • Ary - epiglottic folds • Arytenoids • False Cords Glottic larynx • From apex of laryngeal ventricle to just below cords • True vo

cal cords Subglottic larynx • From just below cords to bottom of cricoid Larynx Staging Changes • Same changes to clinical and pathologic nodal staging as we reviewed for oral cavity (impact of clinical and pathologic ENE) Fiberoptic Laryng

oscopy • Fundamental skill for any head/neck radiation oncologist • Especially important for evaluation of larynx cases, but also for other sites (tongue base, nasopharynx, hypopharynx) • Should not be delegated to ENT if at all possible

• Laryngoscopy video Glottic Larynx: Treatment Approach • T1 - 2, T3 and T4 all have different algorithms • T1 - 2 • Radiation vs. cord - stripping • Radiation preferred unless disease is very superficial • T1: 63 Gy /28 fxs • T

2: 65.25/29 vs. 68 - 70/34 - 35 • Selected T2b cases (impaired vocal cord mobility) may benefit from cisplatin/RT Hypofractionation Field Design: 3D vs. IMRT (carotid sparing) T3 Glottic Larynx: Treatment Approach • Larynx preservation is

the central concept for T3 • VA Larynx Trial • Total laryngectomy vs. induction chemo followed by RT • Equal survival with 2/3 of patients in chemoRT arm able to preserve larynx • RTOG 91 - 11 • Sequential chemoRT vs. concurrent che

moRT vs. RT alone • Concurrent chemoRT had best larynx preservation and locoregional control • To be a candidate for larynx preservation, patient must have a functional larynx (able to breathe and swallow) • UF criterion of tumor volume

cc with no airway compromise to qualify for larynx preservation T3 Glottic Larynx: Planning • GTV70 defined by imaging and fiberoptic exam • CTV70 is 5 mm expansion • PTV70 is 3 mm expansion • CTV60 is entire larynx • PTV60 is 3 mm

expansion • Nodal coverage is usually levels 2 - 4 • Concurrent cisplatin chemotherapy T4 Glottic Larynx: Treatment Approach • T4 glottic larynx cancer is a “surgical disease” based on poor outcome of T4 cases in VA larynx trial â€

¢ Beware of the trap of offering T4 patients larynx preservation with the idea of saving total laryngectomy for salvage — not all recurrences can be salvaged. “Olsen Hypothesis” • Larynx cancer is the only major cancer in which surviv

al is falling • This is due to the substitution of chemoRT in T4 cases with inability to salvage some failures T4 Glottic Larynx: Postoperative RT • Based on pathologic evidence of cartilage invasion, treat the tumor bed with neopharynx

from the distal tongue base to the upper esophagus with margin • 60 Gy /30 fxs • Cover draining nodes bilaterally at levels II - IV • 54 - 60 Gy depending on nodal involvement • Level VI for subglottic extension • ChemoRT for pos

itive margins or ENE Supraglottic Larynx: Treatment Approach • Supraglottic laryngectomy appropriate for selected early cases • pT1 - 2N0 - 1 • Good pulmonary status — aspiration is a risk after supraglottic laryngectomy • Otherwise, m

ain approach is definitive RT or chemoRT • Must have functional larynx (breathe and swallow) • 70/63/56 with chemo or accelerate if RT alone • Cover levels II - IV bilaterally • ChemoRT for • �T2N1 disease, OR • Tumor volu&#x

0000;me 6 cc (UF approach) Subglottic Larynx: Treatment Approach • These are rare compared to glottic and supraglottic tumors • Tend to have clinically aggressive behavior • Access to tracheal lymphatics • May cause airway obstruction

• Can be treated with definitive chemoRT , but salvage can be difficult • More advanced tumors often treated with total laryngectomy, low tracheostomy and postoperative RT/ chemoRT • Cover levels II - IV , VI Hypopharynx Hypopharynx: Ana

tomy Hypopharynx: Subsites • Pyriform sinuses (seen at left) • Post - cricoid • Posterior hypopharyngeal wall Hypopharynx: Treatment Approach • Generally seen as a “surgical disease.” • Usually present late • Often involve lymp

hatics • Often irreversibly compromise swallowing function • Primary surgical approach is total laryngectomy + partial pharyngectomy with flap reconstruction followed by RT or chemoRT • T1 cases (very rare) may be managed with RT alone;

T2 cases (also very rare) with chemoRT • Cover RP, level VI Salivary Tumors Salivary Gland Tumors • Divided into major and minor salivary glands • Major • Parotid • Submandibular • Sublingual • Minor • Scattered nests of saliv

ary tissue throughout the upper aerodigestive tract • Hard palate is the most common site Salivary Histologies • Many different histologies , each with an expected behavior related to grade and other characteristics • Low Grade • Pl

eomorphic adenoma • LG mucoepidermoid • Acinic cell • High Grade • HG mucoepidermoid • Adenoid cystic • Adenocarcinoma • Carcinoma ex - pleomorphic adenoma • Squamous cell carcinoma • Salivary duct carcinoma Salivary Tumors: T

reatment Approach • Salivary tumors are a “surgical disease.” Unless unresectable , all cases begin with an attempt at complete surgical resection. • Postoperative RT indicated for • High grade • Close or positive margins • Peri

neural invasion (all adenoid cystic cases) • Lymph node involvement (proof of high grade behavior) • Recurrence • Tumor spillage Salivary Tumors: Chemotherapy • Role of chemotherapy not well - defined • Consider for multiple positive n

odes • Patients should be enrolled on RTOG 1008 • Postoperative RT +/ - weekly cisplatin for high - grade salivary tumors Additional Topics Altered Fractionation • Very confusing area for many practitioners • RTOG 90 - 03 • DAHANCA •

RTOG 0129 • 4 - arm radiation - only study • 3 hyperfractionated arms with once - daily radiation control arm • Improved local control with pure hyperfractionated and concommitant - boost arms • Improved overall survival with pure hy

perfractionated arm In the setting of concurrent chemotherapy, there was no benefit to accelerated fractionation compared to standard fractionation. Chemotherapy for Head/Neck Patients • Mainstay of chemotherapy in the definitive and posto

perative settings is cisplatin • Both high/dose (bolus) at 100 mg/m 2 and weekly at 30 - 40 mg/m 2 are used widely • Recent Indian randomized study demonstrated improved locoregional control with bolus treatment Cetuximab • What about c

etuximab? • Bonner trial demonstrated OS advantage of RT/cetuximab over RT alone • Only large, randomized comparison of RT/cetuximab vs. RT/cisplatin is RTOG 1016 in HPV+ population — no results yet • Retrospective 2011 trial from MSKCC

for locally advanced HNSCC showed significant improvements in LRC, FFS and OS for concurrent cisplatin vs. concurrent cetuximab • Retrospective 2015 trial from MDACC for p16+ oropharynx patients showed no differences in survival for concur

rent cisplatin, carboplatin or cetuximab • As of now, concurrent cisplatin remains SOC for all groups. Cetuximab reserved for patients who cannot receive cisplatin. Chemotherapy, cont. • How many cycles of bolus cisplatin are indicated? â€

¢ In previous RTOG studies, about half of patients did not receive the third planned cycle of bolus cisplatin due to toxicity • For definitive treatment of HPV+ disease, RTOG 1016 used 2 cycles • For definitive or postoperative treatment of

HPV - negative disease, 3 cycles is generally indicated Chemotherapy, cont. • What about induction chemotherapy? • Popularized by the TAX324 trial • Trial showed advantage of a taxane (docetaxel) added to PF used for induction compared

to the same induction without the taxane • The study did not compare an induction strategy to a pure concurrent strategy • This was the role of the DECIDE and PARADIGM trials • Both finished early and showed no advantage for induction â€

¢ Where might induction have an advantage? • Prevent tracheostomy in patient with impending airway compromise • Rapidly - progressing disease with need to start therapy immediately, before IMRT can be planned Immunotherapy • Pembrolizumab

and nivolumab are FDA - approved for recurrent/metastatic HN cancers after failure of platinum - containing chemotherapy • Both are PD - 1 (programmed death receptor 1) blocking antibodies • Pembrolizumab is given IV every 3 weeks and n

ivolumab is given IV every 2 weeks • Multiple PD - 1 and PDL - 1 agents are in current trials in combination with standard chemoRT for high - risk locally advanced HN cancers, but none is currently approved for that indication PD - 1/PD -

L1 Inhibitor Mechanism Proton Therapy Proton Therapy • Focus of research on proton therapy for HN cancer relates to reduction in normal tissue toxicity from dosimetric advantage of IMPT. • Essentially no dose beyond Bragg peak tends to red

uce or eliminate dose to normal structures beyond target, in contrast to IMRT. • Advantages are greatest for unilateral cases • No prospective, randomized data yet Protons, cont. (Post - TORS tonsil case) Proton Data (all retrospective comp

arisons) • Multiple published studies showing statistically significant reductions in toxicity: • Mucositis • Nausea • Dysgeusia • Fatigue • Feeding tube dependence • Pain • Xerostomia Recommended Proton Review Coverage of Trach

eostomy Site • Tracheostomy site is at elevated risk for recurrence when • Tumor involved the subglottis • Tracheostomy was placed with primary tumor still present (possibility of seeding the tracheostomy wound) • How to prevent recurr

ence at this location? • If IMRT is used to treat low neck, contour tissues around tracheostomy to receive 60 Gy • Unlike traditional AP supraclav field, IMRT may provide enough surface dose to make bolus unnecessary • Can check with s

urface dosimeter • If conventional AP supraclav field is used, consider “donut” bolus to prevent skin sparing in this area Treatment of Retrostyloid and Retropharyngeal nodes • Retrostyloid • Treat whichever side has level 2 nodal

involvement • Retropharyngeal • Cover both lateral RP volumes in any pharyngeal primary case (safest broad recommendation), OR • Cover ipsilateral RP volume only if the pharyngeal wall is involved in an oropharynx case, but bilateral RPs

for all nasopharyngeal and hypopharyngeal cases • Cover medial RP volumes only if the lateral RP nodes are involved Re - Irradiation • Acceptance of re - irradiation for HN tumors has increased markedly from the late 1990s (RTOG 96 - 10)

to 2018 • Previous standard of considering re - irradiation only for cases in which surgical salvage with negative margins was impossible has now shifted • Current SOC has migrated to • Post - op re - irradiation for similar indications a

s any other post - op case • Definitive re - irradiation for unresectable cases • 6 - month disease - free interval • Concurrent chemotherapy is used in almost all non - SBRT re - irradiation settings • Usual fractionation is 2 Gy /d t

o 60 - 70 Gy • RFS 42% at 2 years in one report, 25% risk of severe late effects • SBRT is an alternative for well - localized, unresectable recurrences Follow - Up Imaging • Since the Yao publication in 2008, use of a PET - CT scan at 3

months post definitive RT has been accepted as the key imaging study to assess response (negative predictive value 99% at primary and neck) • Previous algorithms using routine 6 month imaging after the 3 - month PET are no longer current.

• No data exists showing a benefit of routine imaging after 6 months • NCCN no longer recommends routine imaging after 6 months unless site difficult to visualize or symptoms prompt imaging • Imaging should always be obtained if signs/sym

ptoms merit or if tumor site is not amenable to examination Support of the Head/Neck ChemoRT Patient • Head/neck chemoRT is a highly toxic treatment, with 95% of patients suffering grade 3 acute toxicity and 75% suffering grade 3 late tox

icity • Most of the acute toxicity relates to radiation treatment, especially to oral mucositis • It is the responsibility of the radiation oncologist to manage these toxicities, often in coordination with other members of the treatment te

am • What are key elements of this toxicity management strategy? Support, cont. • The most important element is PHYSICIAN/MIDLEVEL TIME • One weekly on - treatment visit may not suffice • OTVs often require 20 - 30 minutes or more • Fo

llow - up visits need to be frequent if acute toxicity is severe • Assistance can be very important • Nutrition • Speech Pathology • Audiology • Pain management • Nursing • Social Work Support, cont. • Pain control deserves speci

fic discussion • Head/neck chemoRT may be the most painful form of cancer therapy, primarily due to oral mucositis • There is no current drug that significantly reduces oral mucositis, so the pain must be managed • Oral hygiene/rinsing

• Magic mix (liquid antacid/diphenhydramine/viscous lidocaine/antifungal/hydrocortisone) • NSAIDS • Gabapentin • Narcotics • Generally, patients without a pre - existing substance abuse history can be treated with adequate doses of na

rcotics for pain control and will taper off successfully when oral mucositis resolves. Follow - up/Rehabilitation Issues • Frequency of visits • Pain management/narcotic taper • Swallowing evaluation/advancing diet/indications for pharyng

eal dilation • Recovery of taste and saliva • Fluoride treatment • Edema/dewlap • Fibrosis/musculoskeletal issues Rehab, cont. • Osteoradionecrosis vs. soft tissue necrosis • Potential influence of fraction size • Evaluation by or

al surgeon for ORN cases • Use of HBO • Addition of pentoxyfylline ER (400 mg tid ) and Vitamin E (1000 u qd ) Summary Summary • Management of head/neck cancer is a complex area of radiation oncology • Limited incidence compared to l

ung/breast/prostate cases • Anatomy • Patterns of spread • Use of fiberoptic laryngoscope • IMRT planning • High levels of acute and long - term toxicity Summary, cont. • Multidisciplinary assessment is key • Close relationships wi

th HN surgeon and medical oncologist • Combined HN clinic arrangement is ideal • Regular HN tumor conference • Case review • Ongoing learning for all participants • Incorporation of biomarkers • p16 • p53 • Proton therapy • Imm